... predicate genitive while having the copula ... in reality it is to be explained as a genitive with substantives. It is not the copula that affects the case of the genitive at all. It is just the possessive genitive in the predicate instead of being an attribute. Often the substantive or pronoun is repeated in sense before the predicate genitive.

Guy Cooper 1:47.6.1 p172

The genitive in the predicate is never strictly a mere equivalent of an adjective. The genitive is a substantive and its use adds an incidental assertion by virtue of the introduction of the new, distinct entity.

D.B. Wallace Exegetical Syntax p. 201

The genitive substantive makes an assertion about another genitive substantive, much like a predicate nominative does.

It looks to me like Smyth is suggesting that τῆς αὐτῆς γνώμης is functioning as a deep structure[1] predicate for τινες ... ὀλίγοι. Another alternative is that Smyth is suggesting a predicate relationship within the genitive constituent itself τῆς αὐτῆς γνώμης. In other words αὐτῆς is being predicated about γνώμης. Smyth can be cryptic which is why I always read several grammars.

b. in Philosophic writers, τις is added to the Art. to show that the Art. is used to denote a particular individual who is not specified in the general formula, although he would be in the particular case, ὁ τὶς ἄνθρωπος the individual man (whoever he may be), this or that man, opp. ἄνθρωπος (man in general), ὁ τὶς ἵππος, ἡ τὶς γραμματική, Arist.Cat.1b4, 8; τὸ τὶ μέγεθος, opp. ὅλως τὸ μέγεθος, Id.Pol.1283a4, cf. S.E.P.2.223; but in “ἑνὸς γὰρ τό γε τὶ φήσεις σημεῖον εἶναι” Pl.Sph.237d, the Art. is used as in Il. cc. s.v. ὁ, ἡ“, τό” B.1.5: later ὅ τις (or ὁ τὶς) much like ὁ δεῖνα, δεῦρο ὅ τις θεός, ὄφθητί μοι in a general formula of invocation, PMag.Par.1.236; αἴρω σε, ἥ τις βοτάνη ib.287; εἰς τήν τινα κρείαν (leg. χρείαν) ib.289.

This part of your post confused me. Could you please explain/elaborate?[Ἀπολλῶ is genitive in the NT?]

This example appears in one of the NT Grammars (A.T. Robertson) under predicate genitive. ἐγὼ ... εἰμι Παύλου is a construction where a genitive proper noun Παύλου is in the predicate slot (position) with the copula εἰμι. In the second half ἐγὼ Ἀπολλῶ[1] is the same construction where εἰμι is left out. These represent one type (subclass) of predicate genitive. There are other types. The sample from

... appears to be somewhat different in that the indefinite pronoun τινες defines a subset of the group defined by the genitive constituent τῆς αὐτῆς γνώμης. My analysis of this probably doesn't represent what Smyth is doing with it. Again, I have trouble with Smyth at times even though he is used almost every day.

I raised the question on b-greek . S. Carlson and C. Conrad both were of the opinion that Smyth's citations under 1320 are not all predicate genitives. I raised the point that the first line of Smyth 1321 introduces exceptions to the statment in the first line 1320. This leads me to conclude that the citations under 1320 are all intended as examples of the predicate genitive. Assuming that is the case I return to Thucy. 3.70

A this moment in the discussion, I read this as a partitive genitive in a verb-less predicate genitive construction, where οἱ δέ τινες ... ὀλίγοι [copula] τῆς αὐτῆς γνώμης (some few of the same opinion —Smyth) is the deep structure.

postscript:

Reading the quoted passage from Thucy. 3.70.6 was not that difficult. Finding out what the metalanguage means in the grammars was very difficult. This might lead some of us to the conclusion that reading is a more fruitful activity than quibbling over metalanguage. I took this on because it looked like a useful learning process. The verdict isn't in yet on b-greek so one might want the check back there to see what the scholars might have to say about this.

Thanks so much for putting that up there. I joined and cited the LSJ passage from above, but as a new member, my comment has to be approved.

I don't know for sure, but I agree with you that they are all predicate genitive in 1320. The other reading is definitely possible, but I don't recall having ever seen Smyth leave a gap quite like that. Still, they may very well be right.

My working hypothesis at the moment turns on the LSJ. Somehow I think that the difference between "the few of the same opinion fled" and "some few, being of the same opinion, fled" is important. Or some such distinction in that direction.

I am pretty sure you know, but I think it bears repeating. The issue is just about how a particular genitive of quality can be predicate. There are lots of predicate genitives. And many are verbless.

pster wrote:Thanks so much for putting that up there. I joined and cited the LSJ passage from above, but as a new member, my comment has to be approved.

I don't know for sure, but I agree with you that they are all predicate genitive in 1320. The other reading is definitely possible, but I don't recall having ever seen Smyth leave a gap quite like that. Still, they may very well be right.

My working hypothesis at the moment turns on the LSJ. Somehow I think that the difference between "the few of the same opinion fled" and "some few, being of the same opinion, fled" is important. Or some such distinction in that direction.

I am pretty sure you know, but I think it bears repeating. The issue is just about how a particular genitive of quality can be predicate. There are lots of predicate genitives. And many are verbless.

Really what it comes down to on b-greek is exegesis of Smyth, not whether Smyth is right or wrong but what is Smyth trying to demonstrate in the citations under 1320. I view 1320 and 1321 as a matched set where the first gives the predicate genitive samples and the second gives not predicate genitive samples. I think a reading of the first sentence in 1320 and 1321 makes this quite clear. But as with all things having to do with texts and interpretation there will always be disagreements and when some of the participants have taught classical greek at the graduate level for over half a century you have to understand that they know just as much about it as the guy who wrote the book you are reading.

BTW, I did find the same passage Th. 3.70.6 cited in Cooper in his five page long discussion of Predicate Genitive where he said:

A personal subject and an impersonal predicative genitive, usually an abstract of intellectual or moral significance, is not common. But the construction is of considerable interest because of its suggestion of obsession, ideology, or indelible character trait (A).

Yes, it looks like a great forum. I wish we had that depth of traffic. I participate in some other forums with heavy hitters and I feel like I should have to pay for the deep quick answers I get.

But don't forget, it's not just Smyth. Marchant and Morris also say it is predicate. Hornblower is blissfully above such grammatical concerns. And any interpretation is going to have explain the tis. Why is Thucydides using a "philosophical" formulation?

o tis anthropos = some particular man

I am struggling a bit to see why we say it in English! I guess the reasons are indeed "philosophical", in particular, modal. So such formulations are going to be at home in hypotheticals. But that seems far from what we have in Thucydides.

Maybe it is predicate because Thucydides wants to give the reason that they fled: ...a certain few, being of the same belief as Peithias, fled... If it were attributive, the connection might be clear, but it wouldn't be explicit. Thucydides wants to make it explicit, so uses this formulation which somehow forces the predicate. But what is the nature of the forcing?

But the Krueger pages that Morris references are just to 18 sections of his grammar, not to his Thucydides commentary! Here's the link if anybody reads German and loves thinking about genitives, but I don't know that there is anything particularly useful there since Morris references 18 consecutive sections!

Reading the quoted passage from Thucy. 3.70.6 was not that difficult. Finding out what the metalanguage means in the grammars was very difficult. This might lead some of us to the conclusion that reading is a more fruitful activity than quibbling over metalanguage.

ταύτης τῆς γνώμης ἔγωγε.

I am writing in Ancient Greek not because I know Greek well, but because I hope that it will improve my fluency in reading. I got the idea for this from Adrianus over on the Latin forum here at Textkit.